from W. Howe, formerly head warder, Cape Town Gaol, for increase of pension.

from Maria M. Retief, teacher, for condonation of a break in her service.

from C. C. A. Labuschagne and others, for remission of repatriation debts.

from M. H. Lazarus, teacher, for condonation of a break in his service.

Annual Report of the Commissioner of Excise, 1912.

moved that the Additional Appropriation (1913-1914) Bill be read a third time.

said the men at Salt River Works were having a quarter of an hour to-day in which to record their votes in connection with the Provincial Council election. It was rumoured, however, that the quarter of an hour was to be deducted from their pay.

I know nothing whatever about it. No such instructions have been given with my authority.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

said the regulations of the railway service provided that, if a man wished to have leave for the purpose of voting, and his vote could not be recorded in his own time, he might be granted unpaid leave.

stated that when progress was reported last night, the House was in Committee on clause 3—Provision as to servants on strike who returned to or made application for employment before certain dates—on which an amendment had been moved by the Minister of Railways and Harbours: In line 30, after “Service,” to insert, “and is still in the Service at the commencement of this Act ”; in line 35, to omit “sixteenth” and to substitute “twenty-seventh.”

said that last night, when he agreed to report progress, they had reached the provisions for dealing with whom they might call the rank and file of the men on strike in January last, and it was being impressed on him from various quarters that it was desirable the clause should be withdrawn. In answer to a question the other night, he had stated to the House, clearly and emphatically, what he thought were the objections to that course, and he was still of the same opinion with regard to the matters he then referred to. He found that in the case of railway strikes throughout the world which he had been able to trace, absolutely no precedent for allowing a man who took part in a strike to go entirely unpunished. (Hear, hear.) In England, the only case he was aware of was a strike on the North-eastern Railway, where the rank-and-file men were fined six days’ pay. In Australia—in Victoria, he thought—every one of the men who went on strike, though he was not fined, was taken back on a reduced grade. He was punished much more severely than proposed in the present Bill. Perhaps the most striking case of the method adopted when dealing with men who went on strike was adopted by the Amalgamated Society of Railway and Harbour Servants in England. No longer ago than 1912 one of their employees, a clerk, went on strike because he wanted 35s., instead of 30s., and a general meeting of the society, by a majority of 43 to 14, decided to dismiss him summarily. The attitude of the Government in regard to this matter had been based upon its duty to that House and to the country to vindicate the law. He had assured the House before, and he assured it again, that there had not been an attempt at vindictiveness, or any desire to wreak vengeance on the men who so far forgot their solemn and serious duty as to take part in an attempt to strangle the country’s transport operations. Only a year or two ago Parliament passed an Act which provided penalties that should fall upon such conduct on the part of railway servants, and if that law had been allowed to take its course by the Government and the Administration, he need not picture the plight in which the vast bulk of the men would have been placed. He must say that he did not think that the provisions made by the law of 1912 were any too severe for conduct of the sort. It said that if a railway servant went on strike he was deemed to have retired, and forfeited all his pension and other privileges. He might be taken back if the Administration so desired, but if he did come back, he must return as a new man, and entirely at a beginner’s wage, and he lost his seniority.

He could not think that the law passed in 1912 made the penalties for railwaymen any too strong. He took the most serious view of their conduct. The provisons of that Bill to any intelligent man must appear to be extremely generous in their leniency, compared with what might have been done under the law to those particular people. It had been suggested that under the circumstances they should go a step further and reduce the sentences by imposing comparatively light fines, and it had been urged that for the rank and file no punishment should be inflicted on them at all. He proposed, on behalf of the Government to make that experiment. (Cheers.) He proposed to take that course, and he wished to say it was not because of any change in the view he had taken of the position in which those men were placed. That was not so, and he hoped it would not be misinterpreted—there was no succumbing to pressure from any side. He took that course because during the discussion in the House it had appeared to him that there was a general feeling on the part of Parliament in various quarters of the House—on the Government side as well as on the other— there was a general feeling apparently that it might be as well for the future if they were now to show special generosity. (Hear, hear.) His attitude in regard to the matter was based on the recognition of the sentiment in the House. He recognised the sentiment as existing largely in various quarters, and he therefore proposed to take this view of the matter—that the Parliament of this country was responsible for having imposed the penalties under the Act of 1912, and apparently there was a feeling that they should give the men another chance. There was a feeling that they should act magnanimously and generously, and in recognition of that feeling he proposed now to adopt the suggestion that the men of the rank and file should be dealt with without the imposition of the penalties provided under the clause. He hoped the action of the Government in that matter would be taken in the right spirit and that it would bear good fruit, because it was in their earnest and genuine hope that it would not be considered as an act of weakness, but that it might engender a better feeling among the men who had been instilled with the doctrine that the Administration was hostile to them. It was in the hope that the attitude adopted by the Government might tend to show the railway men that they intended to deal generously and magnanimously with them—in the hope that they might understand the position, not in a degrading sense, but that it might lead them to understand that the Government meant well by them, and that their attitude was not that of overbearing masters and employers. The law was only did not matter about 18 months old. He was always doubtful as to how many of the men who were influenced, as he was sure the great majority of them were, had known what the law was—how many of them understood what the penalty was they had incurred. In the second place, a large number of them were in various highly objectionable ways influenced against their own better judgment. It was also, they might say, their first offence, and he did trust sincerely that the effect of the attitude of the Government, which would now entirely clear all the men except the ringleaders of all penalties and would place them in the positions they had before, would have good results. That course was more generous than had ever been adopted in any part of the world. It was an experiment, and he trusted that while they hoped for the best results they would still take this view, that the law of 1912 must remain on the Statute-book and that it would be looked upon as providing the punishment for men who went on strike in the future, because then they would not be able to say that they were in ignorance of it. As far as he was personally concerned, nothing had given him greater pleasure than to be able to make that statement. He would move the necessary amendments himself.

said the whole of the House and the country would hear with approval the admirable speech made by the Minister. When he moved the resolution to report progress for the purpose of giving the Minister and his colleagues an opportunity of reconsidering the situation, it had been graciously accepted by the Government, and he felt that there was a feeling throughout the whole of the House that something should be done in the direction he had indicated. He recognised fully that the statement that had been made by the Minister had not been wrung from him. He believed the Minister had been actuated solely by a desire to meet the conditions in the country and bring contentment to the Railway Service. He said unhesitatingly that the action of the Government in acceding to that desire of the House would have the tendency to bring contentment to the Railway Service of the country. There must have been large numbers of the men who came out under the most extreme pressure and who did not realise the responsibility they were adopting. He tendered his thanks to the Minister for the attitude he had adopted, because it would have a tendency to diminish the fearful unrest which had existed throughout the Railway Service. He hoped the railway men would realise that while an example must be made of the ringleaders, that was not being done in a spirit of revenge. He hoped they would never see a case of that sort in the future. The people who had suffered most were the wives and families of the men, and it was the interests of those people, he thought, which had made the House more sympathetic than the position of the men themselves. One could not help recognising the amount of distress that must exist had the House insisted on the original proposals put forward. They were now taking the men back with a clean sheet, and he hoped the action of the Government would be of the greatest possible service to the Railway Service and the Government.

said he wished to add a word of appreciation of the change of the policy of the Minister. He could not help feeling that while the Minister was speaking he had expressed a practical desire to assist the rail-way-workers of the country and show that the Government were prepared to adopt a considerate policy towards them. If that had been shown earlier they would not have had that long discussion or the trouble in January last. No one appreciated the attitude of the Minister more than the members on the cross-benches, and they hoped it would engender a better feeling among the railwaymen and that it would inspire greater confidence in the Administration. But he would like the Minister to remember this—he said it was the first offence; it rested with the Government, not with the men, whether there should be any second offence. That must be obvious to every member of that Committee. He felt sure the railway-workers throughout the country would accept the Minister’s statement in the spirit in which it had been given. The Government had had them in their power and had now allowed them to return to their “status quo.”

said he trusted that the Minister’s magnanimity would be duly appreciated, but that the railwaymen should understand that if in future they again went out on strike they would be dealt with in terms of the law providing for strikes. He hoped the members on the cross-benches would not regard the Minister’s attitude as a victory for themselves, but would understand that his attitude was prompted by the desire of the Government to treat the men with magnanimity, a view which was shared by all moderate men in the House. Without discipline it would be impossible for them to carry on. He would give his last drop of blood in defence of the working-men, but if they went into rebellion they would have to be punished. He hoped the working classes would see that and do their duty as loyal subjects. Should it happen, however, that a similar state of disturbance rose again, he hoped the Government would act with resolution. Working-men ought to understand that clearly.

said that he would like to call the Minister’s attention to the case of certain men in the railway service who were supposed to be leaders. He congratulated the Minister upon the course that the Government had decided upon, and he trusted that he would be able to give consideration to the case of these men. They had been before a departmental committee, and had been recommended for re-employment as opportunity occurred. The Mechanical Engineer at Salt River, however, said that there were at present no vacancies, and he was unable to say with any degree of certainty when it was likely that the men would be required.

called the hon. member to order, and said that he would have an opportunity at a later stage of discussing these cases.

moved to delete paragraph (a) of sub-section 1 and substitute in line 48 “(a)” for “(b).”

said that he wished to congratulate the Minister on the course he had decided to take, and to express a hope that the railwaymen in this country would carefully consider what course events had taken in this matter and whether it was not desirable that they should give more confidence to Parliamentary procedure in the future for dealing with these matters. (Hear, hear.) It must be recognised by the railwaymen that an enormous concession had been granted freely without qualification by the Government. He hoped it would be a lesson to them to look in future to Parliament. He wished to congratulate the Government upon having taken a great step to strengthen the movement which they all wished to see strengthened, viz., that the men should look to Parliament, and not other unconstitutional methods of proceeding. (Hear, hear.)

said that, in view of the rem arks made by the hon. member for Uitenhage, while he added his congratulations to those which had been offered to the Minister, he wished to warn the House to avoid the appearance of emphasising the generosity of this action. He congratulated the Minister upon having taken a course which corresponded with their idea of what the justice of the case demanded.

The amendments were agreed to.

Sub-section (1), as amended, was agreed to.

Sub-section (2) was negatived.

On sub-section (3),

moved a series of consequential amendments in sub-section (3), including the omission of the words “before the evening of the 16th January, 1914, or,” the deletion of “noon ” in line 12, and the substitution of “ten o’clock in the evening ” and the deletion of “on payment of the fines therein imposed ” in line 20.

again called the Minister’s attention to the cases which he had referred to on sub-section 1, and urged that these cases should be taken into consideration. He pointed out that there were numbers of men walking the streets at Cape Town who were hanging on and waiting for the time when they could be taken back into the Service. He thought the Minister might take these men back at once, because they had been before the departmental committee, found not guilty, and recommended for re-employment.

asked if the men were to be specially penalised for having been leaders in this movement. He mentioned the case of a fitter at Klerksdorp, who was sick at the time the strike was proclaimed, but who preferred to take his place with the rest of the men who were out on strike. When the strike was over he reported for duty, but was not reinstated. The men appeared to be suffering from the officiousness—he (Mr. Andrews) did not like to call it vindictiveness—of the minor officials. He hoped the Minister would go into these matters.

said the Committee of Inquiry was composed of those men who were on one side of the dispute. The Minister had convinced them all that he was really desirous of taking a broad line and letting bygones be bygones, but unfortunately he was not content to wipe the slate quite clean. Let the Minister personally take measures to see that the punishment on the leaders did not fall unjustifiably, and let him not leave the matter in the hands of a departmental committee. Let him place in charge of the inquiry some magistrate of repute.

said he saw some difficulty in the suggestion that the Minister should personally inquire into all these cases.

“The machinery.”

It was impossible for the Minister to deal himself with all these hundreds of cases, but the Service Board, which was to be constituted partly from the men themselves, should be assigned the task of dealing with the persons who were to be punished. (Hear, hear.)

said he had an amendment on the paper which dealt with the matter.

said there was no provision which made it absolutely clear that if a man was assumed to be a strike leader he was taken back, and that he would be put in the same position as though he had never been accused of taking a leading part in the strike. The case was dealt with in the following portion of the new clause, suggested by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort: “Any servant who made application as aforesaid, but was not accepted on or before the 28th February, 1914, in consequence of his having been alleged to have taken a leading part in the strike, but who, after inquiry, has been found not to have done so, and has been or may be in consequence accepted by the Administration for employment, shall, if the Minister so authorises, be entitled to the above benefits and privileges.”

said some of the men who were originally considered to be ringleaders had been informed that they were not to be treated as such. He was certain that it was the intention of the Minister to deal with them in exactly the same manner as the other men.

said the hon. member for Barkly (Dr. Watkins) seemed to imply that they were going to have hundreds of ringleaders, but surely that was impossible. He (Mr. Creswell) would advise the Minister not to say simply because a man was an official of the Railwaymen’s Society that therefore he must have been a ringleader.

said that there was another aspect of the matter which had not been put before the House. Perhaps hon. members were not aware that a large number of these men belonged to the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. If these men had not complied with the demands of their executive, it meant expulsion from the society, and their old-age pension from the society would be forfeited. These men could not help themselves coming out on strike.

said that the statement which the hon. member for Liesbeek had just made was decidedly illuminating. (Hear, hear.) Apparently the Trade Union Society had not the slightest compunction of depriving these men of their old-age pension if they did not comply with their orders, and apparently there were no such bowels of compassion in the circles of that society. He might be mistaken, and take an old-fashioned view of it, but he thought that a man’s duty to the State was infinitely superior. (Hear, hear.) As to what the hon. member for Woodstock (Dr. Hewat) had said, the men he had referred to were in a similar position to numbers of other men whose names had been taken for reemployment. He could not undertake to find work for every man who had gone out on strike. They were endeavouring to do all they could to find work for the men, who had, by the way, gone out voluntarily, and had not been turned out, and they had disorganised the Service, so that they could not have the full working order at once. They would endeavour to do what they could, but the others must take their chance. If they wanted to take other employment, let them take it. There were others who, from the beginning, had been waiting for work. When he said “ringleaders,” he did not mean ringleaders in the ordinary military sense, but men who, in some sense or other, had taken an active part—taken a part in destroying railway property or in inciting their fellows to go on strike—and he was not going to take such men on. Proceeding, Mr. Burton said that he had taken precautions that, where a man had been condemned by the committee, and where he had made a protest or was dissatisfied with his rejection, the Railway Board would examine into his case. They were doing so, and as a result of their examination, various cases had been disposed of. Where it was necessary to bring witnesses from long distances to re-hear cases, that was done. If there were any features of difficulty, he joined the Board. That ought to be accepted as sufficient. He undertook on their behalf to see that no cases were disposed of until they had been thoroughly investigated from beginning to end. Alluding to what the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull) had said, he said that they were adding to the scope of the inquiry. These were administrative matters, and it was the Railway Administration which had to decide whether men were to be taken back or not. He thought that that was a perfectly fair and business-like attitude to adopt. As to the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), he did not think his amendment was necessary. As far as he could make out, these men were met by sub-section 2; but if these cases were not provided for, he would do so.

said that the Minister would find out that they were not provided for. These men had not been told that there was no work for them, but had been told that they would not be accepted because they had taken a leading part in the strike, and afterwards it had been found that they had not.

said that the particular point he wanted to impress upon was that a man should not be condemned on the evidence of witnesses with whom he was not confronted.

said he felt that he should say something to express his appreciation of the Minister’s action. His appreciation was all the greater because he fully realised that the men concerned had made themselves guilty of a contravention of an existing law. He was sure the action of the Minister would also be fully appreciated by the railwaymen in his constituency. He wished, however, to draw the attention of the Minister to the case of three men in his constituency, who were not ringleaders, and, he thought, had been somewhat hardly dealt by. These men had been discharged after an inquiry had been made by the departmental committee, and the reason why they had been discharged was that they had had a quarrel with another striker. He read a letter from one of these men, in which it was stated that the quarrel with the other man had been in regard to certain expressions used by this other man, in which he (the other man) had urged violence. The man who had been thrashed made a declaration before the departmental committee, but the others knew nothing about the committee, and were dismissed. The hon. member proceeded to state that two of the men concerned were, to his knowledge, men who had always urged against a strike, and he hoped their case would be fully inquired into. The Minister should act as generously with those two men as with the others.

said he wished to make this clear, that they should not try to sit and try all those individual cases or else that discussion would never come to an end, and they would do the men’s cases no good at all by all that individual ventilation in the House. Let them by all means consider the classes of men, but let them avoid those constant references to individual cases, because he was certain that it would do the Service and the men no good at all.

said he had many letters in his possession which dealt with individual cases and which he could read if he so desired. He would mention one or two in order to impress upon the Minister the necessity of having some impartial Board which would allow the men to go before them and put forward their grievances. He supported the point of view of the hon. member for Barberton that if a Board was constituted under that Act it would not take very long and it would enable the men to go before it with confidence. They would not be administrative boards. There was a large number of men who had taken no active part in the strike who were now turned on the streets. One man had gone before the commission, and, after a few minutes, he was told to wait outside. Then he was called inside and told that his services were no longer required. There was a list of names at each centre of men who were on the blacklist and not only for offences committed during the strike period. He had a list of 15 men with whom he was in touch during the strike period, men who did not incite to strike and who did not damage property, yet they were called ringleaders. It was necessary to have a more stringent inquiry into those cases.

said he had put an amendment on the paper giving the men the right to appeal, but he thought it would be ungenerous after the statement of the Minister to bring an amendment like that forward now. The Minister had given an assurance that every doubtful case would be investigated.

moved an amendment, to add after the word “administration” in the clause, the words “or in consequence of his rejection on the ground of his having taken an active or prominent part in the strike.”

said that that would meet the case.

The amendments were agreed to.

moved to omit, in line 13, the word “third” for the purpose of substituting the word “seven.”

Agreed to.

moved, in lines 13 and 14, to omit the words “(2) as the case may be,” and to substitute the letter “(1).”

Agreed to.

Sub-section 3, as amended was then agreed to.

On sub-section 4,

said he understood the meaning of the sub-section to be that those men not re-employed would forfeit their contributions to the Superannuation Fund.

pointed out that that matter was dealt with in another clause.

Sub-section 4 was then agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 4,

moved the deletion of the whole clause for the purpose of substituting the following new clause: “Save as is excepted in sections 3 and 5 of this Act, a servant who was on strike and who did not offer to return to work as in section 3 of this Act mentioned at or before ten o’clock in the evening on the 27th day of January, 1914, or who, if he did so offer, was not accepted for reemployment by the Administration, shall in accordance with section 47 of the Service Act be deemed to have retired from the service as from the time he so absented himself from duty, and if he is further employed by the Administration he shall not derive any benefit in respect of any period of service prior to the period of the strike, provided that such servant whether reemployed or not shall be entitled to a refund of his contributions to the fund, or to the Superannuation Fund established under Act No. 29 of 1897 of Natal as the case may be without interest.”

expressed his thanks to the Minister for making this concession in so far as to refund subscriptions paid into the Superannuation Fund by those who were not reinstated, because these men felt the punishment of being thrown out of work sufficiently without the further addition of losing the money thus subscribed. He was sure the men would appreciate what the Minister had done.

thought hon. members scarcely appreciated the value of the concession made by the Minister, because the House had already decided that these men should forfeit their subscriptions to the Superannuation Fund. But the Minister had come down to that House and made a concession which the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Boydell) described as a slight concession. He thought the Minister should receive full credit for what he had done, because Parliament had authorised the forfeiting of these benefits.

Old clause 4 was negatived.

New clause 4 was then agreed to.

On clause 5,

moved the deletion of this clause.

said he had an amendment on the paper to this clause. When he out the amendment on the paper he had not properly gauged the generosity of this House. If he had had any idea this House would have remitted the fines of all the railwaymen he would not have put this motion on the paper. The Government, he was pleased to say, had gone one better—(hear, hear)—and he was glad to have the opportunity of withdrawing the amendment.

The amendment was withdrawn.

The motion was agreed to and the clause was deleted.

moved the following new clause: “If a servant who was on strike was an apprentice at the time he absented himself from his duty, his contract of apprenticeship shall, if he was or is accepted for further employment by the Administration, continue to be of effect notwithstanding that the contract would by the terms thereof terminate by reason of such absence from duty; but the apprentice shall not be entitled to any pay under the terms of the contract for the period during which he was on strike.”

The new clause was agreed to.

On clause 6, Confirmation of certain appointments and removals of servants,

said that he would like the Minister to explain to the Committee what this clause really meant, more particularly with regard to removals. It seemed to him that the removals referred to men on the fixed establishment who were removed from the Service.

said that provision was made in the Service Act that the Government might delegate the power of appointment or discharge of servants. Now an interval occurred, rather a long interval, between the authority given by the Act and the actual delegation. A good deal of time was taken up in determining the extent of delegation and there were also legal difficulties. The cases dealt with were simply those of appointments and removals of people like natives. The vast number of the cases were those of natives and white labourers. All cases of retrenchment and retirement on the ground of redundancy, etc., had been carried out in accordance with the statute

said he would like the Minister to make the matter quite clear in relation to the fixed establishment. It seemed to him that this clause confirmed the dismissal of men on the fixed establishment, who were dismissed, as far as he could understand, wrongly. There had been laid on the Table a statement showing that 28 men were dismissed from the fixed establishment for the purpose of reorganisation. As far as he could make out, Parliament had not agreed to the dismissal of a single one of these men for reorganisation. According to law, these men could not be dismissed for the purpose of reorganisation without the consent of Parliament. Therefore, as far as he could understand, and as far as was known to the House, there had been 28 illegal dismissals of men on the fixed establishment. It appeared to him that this clause would cover those dismissals. He thought those men should be treated in the ordinary way, and a motion should be introduced in the House so that the House might know what were the cases it was dealing with. He would suggest to the Minister that some such words as “other than men on the fixed establishment ” should be inserted.

said that this clause only provided for cases where formal approval of the Governor-General had to be taken. It only referred to cases that could be dealt with by the Governor-General. He took it that the section did not confirm where the consent of Parliament was required.

said the hon. member was perfectly right. These were cases in which the reorganisation would require an Executive Council minute. It was now desired to make proper provision because of the difficulty about the delegation of power, as each one of these cases would require an Executive Council minute.

suggested the insertion of “Railways and Harbours” before “Service.”

said he was not quite clear on the legal point. It did not seem quite clear to him that this clause did not legalise the illegal dismissal of men who were on the Fixed Establishment. The clause spoke of removals from the Service being “confirmed and approved.” Did this or did it not cover the case of men on the Fixed Establishment? He could quite understand that the Minister did not intend that it should. He would be glad if the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, would give the Committee his opinion.

said he hoped the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, would not press his amendment, because he would find that the word “Service” occurred right through the Bill. The Bill only referred to the Railway and Harbour Service.

withdrew his amendment.

said that he had never felt quite happy about this clause, although he accepted the explanation of the Minister of Railways and Harbours. Perhaps it would be possible by transposing the clause to remove any element of doubt. He moved to omit all the words, from “are” in line 63 to the end of the clause for the purpose of inserting “which are informal by reason of the want of formal approval of the Governor-General, but are otherwise legal, are hereby confirmed and approved.”

said that he had no objection to this amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On Clause 7, Constitution of Appeal Board,

suggested the omission of this clause and the substitution of the following new clause: From and after the passing of this Act the Appeal Board provided for in section 15, sub-section (6) of the Service Act shall be superseded by a Board constituted as follows: (1) A permanent Appeal Board shall be constituted, and shall consist of a chairman who shall be a magistrate of senior rank, two members nominated by the Administration, and two members elected by the employees who shall sit only when appeals by employees are being dealt with, and two members elected by the officers who shall sit only when appeals by officers are being dealt with. (2) The elected members of the Board shall hold office for three years and shall be eligible for re-election. (3) The Appeal Board shall hear and decide all appeals which may be made to it under section 14 and its decision shall be binding on the Administration and the appellants. (4) The Appeal Board shall for the purpose of trying any such appeals, have the power to summon witnesses and to examine such witnesses on oath, and any member of the Appeal Board is hereby empowered to administer such oath. (5) The Appeal Board, in deciding appeals submitted to it, shall take into consideration any under-payment or overwork of employees or any omission of the Administration to provide a sufficiency of staff or equipment for the performance of the duty in question which may be proved against the Administration. (6) The Appeal Board shall hold its sittings at such railway centres as may be required and as may be most convenient for the hearing of appeals which may be made to it from time to time. Provided, however, that any Board which has since the 25th day of July, 1913, been constituted shall be deemed to have been lawfully constituted. The mover said he appreciated the improvements which the existing clause sought to make in the constitution of the Board, as laid down in the Railway and Harbours Service Act of 1912; but he could not see that it was going to remove the causes of discord. The matter went before the General Manager, but a man might appeal from his decision to that of the Railway Board, whose decision would be final. The Minister having gone so far in letting bygones be bygones, although the Minister had not gone so far as he (Mr. Andrews) would like, they would be glad to avoid circumstances of a nature that they had been reviewing. There should be a real genuine Board of Appeal, independent of the heads of departments altogether. His amendment was on all fours with the one proposed in the Railways and Harbours Service Act, and he hoped it would receive more consideration now than it did on the former occasion. The chief point was that the decisions of the Board should be final. The British railway companies had Boards constituted somewhat similarly to the one he was suggesting. If private companies saw the necessity of such a body, a great Government department should also see the necessity. We had come to the position when the men should feel that they themselves had some final say in matters affecting their rights and welfare. It was not enough simply to have an Advisory Committee, which sent its decisions to the General Manager, who had the final voice. A Board such as he suggested would go a great way to ensuring a thoroughly good understanding between the men and the Administration.

suggested as amendments to the new clause proposed by Mr. Andrews: To omit paragraphs (1) and (2), and to substitute the following paragraphs: (1) There shall be established an Appeal Board, constituted as hereinafter provided, consisting of two members elected by the servants in one of the sections referred to in the next succeeding paragraph, two members nominated by the Administration and a chairman. (2) For the purpose of this section the Administration shall, on the taking effect of this Act, divide the servants into sections, having common interests, and the servants in each such section shall elect from among themselves two persons to be members of the Appeal Board for the hearing of appeals brought by servants belonging to such section. (3) The servants so elected, and the persons nominated by the Administration, shall hold office for a period of three years from the date of their election or nomination, and any casual vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as the member was appointed whose vacancy is being filled. (4) The Governor-General shall nominate three persons, not being servants or past servants of the Administration, to be a panel, from which, when an appeal is notified to the Appeal Board, a chairman shall be selected, either by agreement by the members of the Board by whom the appeal is to be heard, or a majority of them, or failing such agreement, by the Governor-General. The mover said an Appeal Board was really required. The idea of it could be adopted by the Minister without in any way abdicating the responsibility he and the Government must have for the ultimate control of the Railway Service. No one desired to deprive them of the responsibility of the management of the Service, but when they had such a large and scattered service as the railway was some body was wanted to which the men could go when adverse decisions were given against them by their superiors. A great many grievances which might otherwise develop into strikes could be disposed of when a man could take his case to an impartial tribunal. His objection to the existing Board was that it was not really an Appeal Board at all, because when it had sat on a case and come to a decision it advised the General Manager, who need not act upon the board’s advice, and even then there was an appeal to the Railway Board. If they were to have an Appeal Board on which the men were to have their representatives that should be a final body to deal with the matter. He would strongly recommend the Minister, if he did not see his way to accept such a Board, to make the appeal from his body direct to the Railway Board and not to the General Manager. His (Mr. Duncan’s) amendment followed on the lines laid down by a British Royal Commission, which advised the formation of Railway Conciliation Boards, half of the members to be nominated by the men and the other half by the company concerned. Proceeding, the hon. member said that if the two sides could not come to an agreement there was provision for the appointment of a chairman who would then be called in as arbitrator. He did not put that in the amendment, but proposed to leave that to be adopted or not, as the Administration might desire. He did not think it desirable to have a permanent chairman. The members of the board to represent the men should be elected in sections so that those who made their appeal from any particular section would have it considered by representatives with special knowledge of that section. He begged to move the amendment.

expressed his willingness to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg in place of the one he had moved.

said he could not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg. The amendment proposed to set up a judicial body to come to a decision over the heads of the Administration. The hon. member had laid special stress on that point that the decision of that body was to be final, therefore they could bring anything before the body, cases of insufficiency of pay or questions of hours.

Only what the Act allows

(proceeding) said he opposed the amendment because of the change made in the constitution of the Appeal Board. It was really an advisory committee to the General Manager. Representatives of both sides had acted together very well indeed, and as the hon. member knew, his suggestion regarding sectional interests being represented had been carried out. That Advisory Committee had been formed on those lines. The Bill now proposed that any servant who was dissatisfied with the General Manager’s decision should be able to bring his case before the committee for consideration. To show how well it had worked, he would point out that out of 17 cases which had come before the committee, the representatives of men and the official representatives had only differed in one point. They had agreed on all the others. They had dismissed 11 or 12 appeals, and in the case of the one in which they had differed he (the hon. Minister) had upheld the view of the men’s representatives. The committee had worked satisfactorily, and he did not object—until he was satisfied that it was the right thing to do, and he was by no means satisfied—to their setting up an outside body that was going to override the Administration. It was proposed to establish a judicial Court of Appeal, and they would be having advocates appearing and magistrates sitting, a regular judicial process, to hear complaints of the railway servants against the Administration, and men with grievances would be running to the Appeal Board and some decision would be given to override the Administration.

The whole of the machinery of the Administration would be overridden and that would be a very unwholesome and unsatisfactory procedure. That Board was to have supreme authority but not an atom of responsibility. The responsibility would rest wholly on the shoulders of the Railway Administration for the conduct of affairs in the Railway Service. He believed that the proposals made in the Bill went a long way indeed towards setting up just the thing that was wanted. Even the proposal of the hon. member for Uitenhage last year did not make the Appeal Board the final appeal. Even he proposed that there should be a final appeal to the Railway Board. They wanted the men to be satisfied. The men should feel there was some representative of theirs who had a voice in advising the Administration, and they would get an advisory body to which either the Administration or the men could refer matters for recommendation. If the recommendation was disregarded they would hear all about it, of that they might be certain. The men would very soon complain; there had been no suffering on account of backwardness in that direction in the past. There was no doubt the Advisory Committee had acted very well so far, and he thought it would be wise now to extend its scope. Let them give the thing a trial for a few years. Let them see how it would work, and if they were found to be unsatisfactory then it would be time enough to think about a change. It was at the men’s suggestion that the change had been made.

When was it made?

In July or August. Proceeding, he said it was unnecessary to place it in legal form. Hitherto the Board had not operated with legal authority, and it was now proposed to extend its scope and take in other than disciplinary matters.

said that the position taken up by the Minister did not surprise him. His attitude was quite in conflict with those held by the hon. members on the cross-benches. The Minister placed discipline paramount, and imagined that anything which limited authority of the Administration was going to interfere with the efficient carrying on of the service. There was no doubt there was some justification for that view, but it was precisely because he wanted everything his own way that had led to the protests which the Minister called upheavals. He had made an appeal to the committee to let the thing go on a few years and then, if it were not satisfactory, they should try something else. He (Mr. Creswell) wanted to point out that the committee was instituted because of the unsatisfactory working of the arrangements passed under the Act of 1912. The railway service, owing to injustices, was in a state of administrative ill-health, and they had to make a change. They should study the thing at the present time and not leave it over for a few years, to find then it was unsatisfactory. The Minister had said that everything was to be brought into the jurisdiction of the Board, but under the old section 15 it was only in regard to questions of misconduct.

Surely, the Minister would admit that, if it was necessary that they were going to achieve justice, that question of overwork, under-payment, and those sort of things which gave rise to dissatisfied feelings, ought to be taken into consideration by such a Board. The principal point was, and he did not think the Minister would give way in that, that the heads should be absent. He could not see that the Board, which was an Appeal Board, was going to interfere with efficient work; but, on the other hand, it would really conduce to efficient work. He hoped that the Minister would reconsider his decision. One of the virtues of such an institution was that, as time went on, a large number of cases which to-day might be brought to the Appeal Court would not occur in future, because those responsible for the iniquities and injustice would see that these matters would be brought before the Board.

asked how was it that there was no Railway Committee that session? It was the very thing they wanted between Parliament and the Administration, and it familiarised people with the difficulties who otherwise did not find them out. It was troublesome probably to the Minister, but there was nothing more useful than one of these Standing Committees. It had been dropped. Why?

replied that the committee had not been dropped at all. If the right hon. member would cast his memory back, he would see that there had been nothing which could be referred to such a committee.

There is the General Manager’s report.

was understood to say that a Select Committee had been proposed, but had not been adopted. If the right hon. member had read the Bill, he could not understand his remarks that afternoon. The Bill did not propose to take the authority out of the hands of the Administration, and that was the difference between the Bill and the amendment of the hon. member for George Town (Mr. Andrews).

said that they wanted the railwaymen to have an Appeal Board, in which they themselves could have confidence, and it would go a long way to putting a stop to many of these petty complaints and grievances which were allowed to accumulate until they resulted in a large upheaval. All over the world advances were made amongst the people, but statesmen conceded just as much as would satisfy them, as the late Mr. Gladstone had said. The difference was that the Minister would not budge an inch, and the result was that, in many cases, they had upheavals. It was far better to establish a satisfactory Board, where the men could have justice done them.

Now the position would be that the men who had been wronged would be tried by the men who had wronged them. They were prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg. He would like to remind the Minister that he laboured under a misapprehension if he thought that Board dealt with overwork, under-payments, insufficiency of staff, etc. If an individual came before the Board charged with misconduct, then under the clause they might take into consideration any surrounding circumstances. The Minister had no right to say that that raised the whole question of under-payment and overwork—it only dealt with that matter under section 14 of the Act which dealt with misconduct. If the Minister did not accept a Board like that now, it must come sooner or later, so why not make a job of it?

said the Minister had proposed that all questions coming under section 8 and under the Regulations should be referred to the Board. The hon. member for George Town wanted to omit that altogether. He did not agree with the hon. member that the trouble in the Railway Service was due to the fact that that Board had not got the last word—he thought it was due to the Board not having power to deal with matters of discipline. The Minister had proposed that the Board should deal with those matters, and the member for George Town proposed to take it away. The Minister very naturally said that, in dealing with clause 7 and the constitution of the Board, they must consider the work that was going to come to the Board. The hon. member for Victoria West said that it would be impossible for the administrative officers to carry on their work under the Board. The Minister evidently did not think it was desirable to impose some form of punishment on those men who brought forward frivolous complaints to the Board. He thought an independent Chairman of the Board would be an advantage. Another point he felt about was this—he did not think that the centralised Boards would be a great success. He thought it would be better if they were localised a bit more, and he suggested that the Minister should have local Boards, one for each division. He thought that would be more effective and would make the men feel that they knew more about the Board which was sitting and it would give them more confidence. He did not agree that the Boards should have the last word. He would make the suggestion as he had done last year that where the decision of the Board was over-ridden, then it should be reported to Parliament. He would like the Minister to express an opinion on that point. The Minister had stated that the recommendation of the Board had been adopted, but this was not widely known and he thought it would be far better if Parliament and the country knew when the decisions of the Board had been over-ridden. With regard to the constitution of the Board, he would like to accept something on the lines proposed by the member for George Town (Mr. Andrews). The Minister had asked that this Board, which had only just been constituted, should be given time to see what it could do. But this he (Mr. Fremantle) maintained was intended to be a permanent Board, and they should not hesitate to make any changes when those changes were likely to be for the better. The Committee, he thought, would be wise if they accepted the first part of the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg as an amendment to the proposal of the member for George Town. He hoped the Minister would refer to these matters.

thought he had dealt with the points just referred to by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle). The constitution of the Board was one of the points on which they did not agree. So far this Board had done good work, and so long as it continued to answer its purpose, should be allowed to exist.

then put the question, that clause 7, as printed, stand part of the Bill, and declared the “Ayes” had it.

called for a division, which was taken with the following result.

Ayes—68.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Currey, Henry Latham

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Harris, David

Jagger, John. William

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arroldus Slabbert

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Macaulay, Donald

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Quinn, John William

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Rockey, Willie

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johanres Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christiaa

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter. Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brana

Whitaker, George

Wilcooks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wiltshire, Henry

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

H. Mentz and H. C. Becker, tellers.

Noes—22.

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan Patrick

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Haggar, Charles Henry

Hull, Henry Charles

Hunter. David

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Magincss, Thomas

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Runciman, William

Searle, James

Struben, Charles Frederick William Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly Watkins, Arnold Hirst

H. A. Wyndham and J. Hewat, tellers.

It was therefore agreed that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

On clause 8, Appeal Board may consider certain complaints,

moved to add the words “and the decision of the said board shall be final, unless reversed by the Railway Board” at the end of the following paragraph: “The Administration or the General Manager (as the case may be) shall, at the written request of any servant who has made any such complaint as aforesaid and is dissatisfied with the decision there on, refer the complaint to the said Board.” He said the point was that, this being an appeal from the General Manager, the General Manager should not override it unless the Railway Board agreed. He thought it was a very reasonable proposal and that it would give a considerable amount of satisfaction. The hon. member a little later altered his amendment to read: “And the decision of the said board shall be final, unless reversed by the Railway Board.”

hoped the Committee would not accept the amendment.

By leave of the Committee,

withdrew his amendment.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 9, Certain pensionable emoluments on which contributions shall and shall not be made,

moved in lines 32 and 33 to omit “immediately prior to the 31st day of May.” and to substitute “on the 1st day of July.”

In reply to Mr. P. DUNCAN (Fords-burg),

said the object of the clause was to allow the Cape men to contribute on the trip system.

On their total earnings?

On the overtime.

That’s all right.

The amendment was agreed to

The clause as amended was adopted.

New clause 10,

moved: That the following be a new clause, to follow clause 9, viz.: 10. The words “a Cape fixed establishment servant ” appearing in sub-section (10) of section 9 of the Service Act shall be deemed never to have been inserted therein.

Agreed to.

On clause 10, Short title.

moved a new clause to the effect that notwithstanding anything in the Railway and Harbour Service Act any servant who has ten years’ continuous service shall be on the Fixed Establishment and shall not be dismissed without the consent of both Houses of Parliament.

I do not think I can accept the amendment. It is contrary to the object of the Bill.

The object of the Bill is to amend the Service Act, and this is an amendment of the Service Act.

It will involve considerably more expenditure. I believe.

It will involve no extra expenditure at all.

It is rather a difficult question to answer offhand, but I should imagine it must involve additional expenditure.

Under those circumstances I cannot take the amendment.

Is your ruling because of the Minister’s statement?

Yes.

The Minister did not make a definite statement, and I am not sure he has appreciated the full sense of the amendment

The hon. member can give notice and bring it up at some other time.

The clause was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments which were set down for consideration on Monday next.